Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter “Protocol of San Salvador”). 23 6. The second position, in contrast to the first, argues for “direct justiciability.” It claims that the Court has jurisdiction to hear autonomous violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights on the basis of Article 26 of the Convention, in the understanding that they are justiciable on an individual basis. 4 This viewpoint analyzes violations of ESCER through the lens of Article 26, recognizing a direct remittance to the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards found in the OAS Charter. The analysis of the infringements of ESCER will always be seen as a violation of Article 26, by reference to the OAS Charter or the American Declaration, leaving aside an integration with civil and political rights. 7. The third position, which is the one that I endorse, is that which we could call the “position of simultaneity.” As I mentioned in previous concurring opinions and repeating my reasoning there, 5 my view on this option derives from a full recognition of the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inter-relationship among the human rights, which serves as the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction when it hears cases of violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. I state this in the belief that human rights are interdependent and indivisible in such a way that civil and political rights are intertwined with economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. They are, particularly, indivisible in circumstances such as those encountered in this case. 8. That is why I have stated that this interdependence and indivisibility allows us to see the individual in an integral manner as a full holder of rights, which has an impact on the justiciability of his or her rights. The Preamble to the Protocol of San Salvador has a similar view: “Considering the close relationship that exists between economic, social and cultural 2 This was the majority position of the Inter-American Court until the judgment in Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Among other cases in which this position was taken are: “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112 and Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125 to mention two examples, as well as Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No.298. 3 6. In the case in which the rights established in Articles 8(a) and 13 were violated by an act directly imputable to a State Party of this Protocol, such a situation could occur through the participation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and, when appropriate, of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the application of the system of individual petitions governed by Articles 44 to 51 and 61 to 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Protocol of San Salvador. 4 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 142 and 154; Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 34 to 37; Case of National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, paras. 33 to 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62 and Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 195. 5 Cf. Concurring opinion in National Association of the Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (Ancejub-Sunat) v. Peru (November 21, 2019); Hernández v. Argentina (November 22, 2019); Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina and Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antonio de Jesús and their families v. Brazil (July 15, 2020). 2